Master Xu Yun – Dharma, Vinaya & Bodhisattvahood!
Master Xu Yun's relics
Author’s Note: Richard Hunn left his body on October 1st, 2006. He was sat upright in a Kyoto hospital bed with his family around him. His mind was pure, clear, and all-embracing. I felt the exact moment whilst sat meditating in my home in South-West London some 6,000 miles away. The next day, his son Charles and wife Taeko very kindly telephoned me to confirm what I already knew. My family was packing to fly to Japan – but these plans were halted with this sad news. I knew he was ill, indeed, he had told me he was dying - and had asked that I meditate on medical healing everyday – which I did. During Xmas 2005, he had sent a card which read “Anything is possible!”. And here we all are together – celebrating death. Whatever you may think about this inevitable process – it is natural and cannot be avoided. I train to die sat upright – but I am aware of how the body completely relaxes even when asleep. Is it possible? I think so. It requires aligning all the bones and joints (as seen within the art of Taijiquan) so that the inner posture of the body retains its own “up-right” position even when conscious control has been completely surrendered. That is my plan. I have left instructions with my family for my dead body to be photographed sat up-right before the Authorities process it into nothing (public health in the UK). What is the worst that can happen? I will topple forward, backward or to the sides – but by that time – and should this happen, I will be beyond caring. In a sense, it’s a win win for me! Ch’an is shot through with humour – even in the saddest of moments. This is why loving kindness, compassion, and wisdom continuously flows from the universal centre of my being to all other beings – everywhere – at all times!
ACW (13.10.2025)
ACW (13.10.2025)
In the West, many lay-people like to believe they are ordained monks – when in fact they are unordained lay-individuals. Why is this? Part of the issue is that the US has taken its cue from Japan and not China. China is the home of Ch’an – whilst Japan is the home of the Zen derivative. The two traditions are historically related – but manifest as two different cultural expressions. Whereas in the West the bias toward Japan has led to the false idea that Japan is prominent and China secondary. This position is ahistorical. Whereas Chinese Buddhism – even in its post-1949 expression – views the Vinaya Discipline as the true foundation of Indian Buddhism – outside of India. It is through the establishment of the Vinaya Discipline in another country (practiced by at least three or more monks) that the Dharma is considered truly “transmitted”. This is true even though the Buddha stated that it is the Dharma (and not the Vinaya) that is the central aspect of his teaching. Indeed, the Buddha even stated that his monastics could abandon the Vinaya Discipline if they chose to do so – but they did not choose to do this. Therefore, the Vinaya Discipline was retained – and no country outside of India possessed the moral right to give it up.
The Buddha deals in self-truth. For the Buddha’s method to work – a practitioner must be able to discern all inner and outer phenomena correctly. This requires a straight-lined honesty, from which there must be no deviation. Whilst interfacing with the Western culture, Christian monasticism has been the vehicle through which an unfamiliar Asian Buddhism has been interpreted. A typical Catholic monastery possessed fully ordained monks, novice monks, and child-monks, all assisted by pious and devout laymen in the form of oblates – or similar depending upon order (robed lay-people) – who interfaced between the monastic community and the broader society at large. Many of the robed laymen often lived just as disciplined as the monks they assisted, but for various reason were unable to fully ordain. Whereas the monks of St Benedict had no choice but to follow every word of the Order of St Benedict – the oblates followed exactly the same Rule in a purely voluntary manner. This is a worthy practice - even within a hierarchical feudal system. This Western foundation is important to recognise as the underlying foundation to one of the main ways Asian Buddhism has been imported.
Interestingly, there is a parallel within traditional Chinese Confucian culture. China possess an ancient culture that for thousands of years knew nothing about Indian Buddhism. Like for the West, Indian Buddhism contained many unfamiliar elements for Chinese society. Confucianism interpreted the family as a microcosm of the imperial court – which must be administered exactly the same way. Just as the Emperor reflected the ordered universe – the father controlled his family as a perfect reflection of the Emperor. Not to do this was considered “treason” – punishable by death. Furthermore, within State Confucianism, nepotism was the guiding principle which saw members of the same family only caring for other members of their family. No one outside the family qualified for compassion or help – and there was no cross-cultural caring. The aristocracy followed natural law and could do as they wanted (their behaviour being viewed as superior) – whilst the peasantry was firmly held in place by the rule of law (that is, by a law that applied everywhere to everyone) – as their behaviour was viewed as inferior. This stratification can be found within the Book of changes (Yijing).
Confucius eulogised education and learning – but did not advocate any system of monasticism. Confucian scholars wore robes because men of a certain status (married or single) within a household wore this attire. Confucianists visited the family shrines a number of times throughout the year – with peasants being permitted to use surnames from the time of the Han Dynasty. It was the possession of surnames which allowed a Chinese family access to the Confucian tradition. Good behaviour was considered to be in accordance with the “Way” (Dao) – which was internally cultivated by Confucian scholars studying the old texts which contained the ancient wisdom of China. As Buddhist monks wore robes, the incoming Indian Buddhism permitted devout Chinese lay-men to ware their robes in the temple during Dharma lessons and worship – and outside the temple during their daily activities. This is how Indian Buddhism integrated into Confucian China. However, a firm distinction was retained between ordained monks and devout lay-people – even though the Buddha said that a) lay and ordained (male and female) practitioners can realise enlightenment, and that b) there is no difference in quality between an enlightened lay-person or an enlightened monastic.
Indeed, a Ch’an monk is nothing but a disenfranchised “beggar” – and it is interesting that anyone would want to be such an entity. After-all, the highest monk is below the lowest lay-person. More is morally expected of the monk – even though it is far more difficult for the lay-person to properly follow the Vinaya Discipline. Anyone can wear a robe – just as anyone can break the Vinaya Discipline. The other side of this involves the upholding of the Bodhisattva Vows. All beings should uphold the Bodhisattva Vows which mirror the Vinaya Discipline but does not require strict celibacy. Together, both Vows bridge the gap between Indian and Chinese culture. Many lay-people have lived monastic lives and have attained enlightenment – but have avoided the karmic trap of claiming to be something they are not. On the other hand, many monastics, that is fully ordained monks, never realise enlightenment, and have difficulty keeping the rules as they should be kept. The hellish karma here – is claiming any attainment that does not exist. Passing through the barrier of Vinaya ordination intensifies the karmic retribution for behaviour manifest in word, deed, and thought. This is not a punishment meted-out by an external force – but is entirely self-inflicted.
Taking vows within Buddhism is a serious affair. It is a physical-moral nexus of cause and effect. Whereas Western science, which is a very powerful siddhi, focuses upon the material plane, Buddhist science adds to this a psychological aspect of being. This is because a human-being is aware of the physical world he or she inhabits. There can be no perfectly objective view of external reality because there must be some type of device (such as a body, brain, or mind) that perceives it. This is true even if it is acknowledged that material processes can be measured, replicated, and used for other purposes. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with assuming the physical world is purely external – even though we know this cannot be the full story to the entirety of reality. The Vinaya Discipline was seen by Master Xu Yun as central to all Chinese Buddhist traditions – and particularly that of Ch’an. Ch’an seems detached from Buddhism – but in reality – it lies at the very centre. It is the Vinaya Discipline which gives the Dharma its central core of power, direction, and working efficiency. If the Vinaya Discipline is excised from the centre of Buddhism – then its core ceases to exist, and its method loses all its development power.
Master Xu Yun understood that everyone – lay or monastic – adheres to the Vinaya Discipline in one form or another. Even Bodhisattvas and Mahasiddhis understand that the freedom of enlightenment flows from the firm foundation of “Sila” – or Buddhist morality. On the one-hand it is following the hundreds of rules – on the other it is following the “Mind Precept”. The Mind Precept is the immediate penetration of all phenomena – here and now – and directly knowing what is correctly right or wrong in any given situation. The inexperienced can reference the Vinaya and Bodhisattva Rules – but the advanced practitioner – being a product of countless hours of iron discipline, knows straightaway what action is required and what action should be avoided. The Wisdom Mind permeates and pierces all reality so that there is no aspect that is not illuminated. Master Xu Yun passed away 66-years ago – on October 13th, 1959. He chose not to sit upright as many ancient masters did – but rather to emulate the Buddha himself and pass away lying on his right-side. He instructed Master Ti Guang to have his body cremated and the ashes rolled into dough-balls – before being thrown into the river to feed the fish. Amongst his ashes many Dharma-Jewels were recovered and preserved. This is not an uncommon finding amongst the ashes of prominent Ch’an Buddhist Masters (lay or monastic). Within Chinese language sources I have seen photographs of a handful of such relics gathered after Master Xu Yun’s body was burned. Although there is a scientific explanation for this, such objects are not often found in the remains of many ordinary people – with their discovery being linked to purity of character and virtue of action.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2025.
The Buddha deals in self-truth. For the Buddha’s method to work – a practitioner must be able to discern all inner and outer phenomena correctly. This requires a straight-lined honesty, from which there must be no deviation. Whilst interfacing with the Western culture, Christian monasticism has been the vehicle through which an unfamiliar Asian Buddhism has been interpreted. A typical Catholic monastery possessed fully ordained monks, novice monks, and child-monks, all assisted by pious and devout laymen in the form of oblates – or similar depending upon order (robed lay-people) – who interfaced between the monastic community and the broader society at large. Many of the robed laymen often lived just as disciplined as the monks they assisted, but for various reason were unable to fully ordain. Whereas the monks of St Benedict had no choice but to follow every word of the Order of St Benedict – the oblates followed exactly the same Rule in a purely voluntary manner. This is a worthy practice - even within a hierarchical feudal system. This Western foundation is important to recognise as the underlying foundation to one of the main ways Asian Buddhism has been imported.
Interestingly, there is a parallel within traditional Chinese Confucian culture. China possess an ancient culture that for thousands of years knew nothing about Indian Buddhism. Like for the West, Indian Buddhism contained many unfamiliar elements for Chinese society. Confucianism interpreted the family as a microcosm of the imperial court – which must be administered exactly the same way. Just as the Emperor reflected the ordered universe – the father controlled his family as a perfect reflection of the Emperor. Not to do this was considered “treason” – punishable by death. Furthermore, within State Confucianism, nepotism was the guiding principle which saw members of the same family only caring for other members of their family. No one outside the family qualified for compassion or help – and there was no cross-cultural caring. The aristocracy followed natural law and could do as they wanted (their behaviour being viewed as superior) – whilst the peasantry was firmly held in place by the rule of law (that is, by a law that applied everywhere to everyone) – as their behaviour was viewed as inferior. This stratification can be found within the Book of changes (Yijing).
Confucius eulogised education and learning – but did not advocate any system of monasticism. Confucian scholars wore robes because men of a certain status (married or single) within a household wore this attire. Confucianists visited the family shrines a number of times throughout the year – with peasants being permitted to use surnames from the time of the Han Dynasty. It was the possession of surnames which allowed a Chinese family access to the Confucian tradition. Good behaviour was considered to be in accordance with the “Way” (Dao) – which was internally cultivated by Confucian scholars studying the old texts which contained the ancient wisdom of China. As Buddhist monks wore robes, the incoming Indian Buddhism permitted devout Chinese lay-men to ware their robes in the temple during Dharma lessons and worship – and outside the temple during their daily activities. This is how Indian Buddhism integrated into Confucian China. However, a firm distinction was retained between ordained monks and devout lay-people – even though the Buddha said that a) lay and ordained (male and female) practitioners can realise enlightenment, and that b) there is no difference in quality between an enlightened lay-person or an enlightened monastic.
Indeed, a Ch’an monk is nothing but a disenfranchised “beggar” – and it is interesting that anyone would want to be such an entity. After-all, the highest monk is below the lowest lay-person. More is morally expected of the monk – even though it is far more difficult for the lay-person to properly follow the Vinaya Discipline. Anyone can wear a robe – just as anyone can break the Vinaya Discipline. The other side of this involves the upholding of the Bodhisattva Vows. All beings should uphold the Bodhisattva Vows which mirror the Vinaya Discipline but does not require strict celibacy. Together, both Vows bridge the gap between Indian and Chinese culture. Many lay-people have lived monastic lives and have attained enlightenment – but have avoided the karmic trap of claiming to be something they are not. On the other hand, many monastics, that is fully ordained monks, never realise enlightenment, and have difficulty keeping the rules as they should be kept. The hellish karma here – is claiming any attainment that does not exist. Passing through the barrier of Vinaya ordination intensifies the karmic retribution for behaviour manifest in word, deed, and thought. This is not a punishment meted-out by an external force – but is entirely self-inflicted.
Taking vows within Buddhism is a serious affair. It is a physical-moral nexus of cause and effect. Whereas Western science, which is a very powerful siddhi, focuses upon the material plane, Buddhist science adds to this a psychological aspect of being. This is because a human-being is aware of the physical world he or she inhabits. There can be no perfectly objective view of external reality because there must be some type of device (such as a body, brain, or mind) that perceives it. This is true even if it is acknowledged that material processes can be measured, replicated, and used for other purposes. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with assuming the physical world is purely external – even though we know this cannot be the full story to the entirety of reality. The Vinaya Discipline was seen by Master Xu Yun as central to all Chinese Buddhist traditions – and particularly that of Ch’an. Ch’an seems detached from Buddhism – but in reality – it lies at the very centre. It is the Vinaya Discipline which gives the Dharma its central core of power, direction, and working efficiency. If the Vinaya Discipline is excised from the centre of Buddhism – then its core ceases to exist, and its method loses all its development power.
Master Xu Yun understood that everyone – lay or monastic – adheres to the Vinaya Discipline in one form or another. Even Bodhisattvas and Mahasiddhis understand that the freedom of enlightenment flows from the firm foundation of “Sila” – or Buddhist morality. On the one-hand it is following the hundreds of rules – on the other it is following the “Mind Precept”. The Mind Precept is the immediate penetration of all phenomena – here and now – and directly knowing what is correctly right or wrong in any given situation. The inexperienced can reference the Vinaya and Bodhisattva Rules – but the advanced practitioner – being a product of countless hours of iron discipline, knows straightaway what action is required and what action should be avoided. The Wisdom Mind permeates and pierces all reality so that there is no aspect that is not illuminated. Master Xu Yun passed away 66-years ago – on October 13th, 1959. He chose not to sit upright as many ancient masters did – but rather to emulate the Buddha himself and pass away lying on his right-side. He instructed Master Ti Guang to have his body cremated and the ashes rolled into dough-balls – before being thrown into the river to feed the fish. Amongst his ashes many Dharma-Jewels were recovered and preserved. This is not an uncommon finding amongst the ashes of prominent Ch’an Buddhist Masters (lay or monastic). Within Chinese language sources I have seen photographs of a handful of such relics gathered after Master Xu Yun’s body was burned. Although there is a scientific explanation for this, such objects are not often found in the remains of many ordinary people – with their discovery being linked to purity of character and virtue of action.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2025.